Author Topic: SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (Read 63291 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #35 on:** August 16, 2015, 02:20:17 PM »

Quote from: AJNC

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
AJNC,

+Fellay has been dishonest even with the religious orders (Dominicans of Avrille, Braz. Benedictines and the German Carmelites. He was caught on many lies). So, he has totally discredited himself. I think +de Galarreta would have to go with +Fellay to Rome because he is the one that handled the talks with the Romans. My assumption is that if the two assistants are eager to go to Rome, so is +dG. If he has objections to it, he should have spoken after Fr. Pfluger made it clear the train to Rome is leaving. As far as +TM, my impression is that they are not leveling with him but is clear from his last talk that he is not going to Rome. He calls those who advise going to Rome "bad friends" and warns about them.

+TM may be the reason why the SSPX is coming to Rome through the back door (Argentina), as someone who has something to hide but from his last interview, he has gone the whole hog. I was delighted to hear Fr. Cyprian's June sermon. After listening to it, it is clear to me that he will not go to Rome. His speaking so emphatically at this time when +Fellay is showing his reform of the reform colors is no coincidence and very encouraging. MO.

MA, I agree with what you say about Bp Fellay. But take a look at this extract from the editorial of the just departed SSPX-UK Superior in that District's July-August Bulletin.

http://sspx.co.uk/newsletter_2015_16_julaug.pdf

Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon
The recent departures from the Society of Father Brendan King and Father Giaco-
mo Ballini are truly regrettable, not least because they are based upon the fear of a false deal with the Roman authorities, something which has not happened and, please God, will never, happen. The following extract from Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon given in Athlone, Dun Laoghaire, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, at the occasion of the recent Confirmations, highlighted this very point:
“The triple office conferred by the Sacrament of Confirmation is to profess, to
combat for, and to propagate, the Faith, the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church... This mission is more urgent than ever given that the situation in the Church is getting worse from day to day.
We see how the ecclesiastical authorities are continuing the liberal and modernist
revolution, and how this touches on all the aspects of the life of the Church. Having over-turned Catholic teaching, the Faith, Catholic doctrine, the liturgy, the sacraments, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the government of the Church, the nature of the Church her-self, with a new bible, new a new catechism, a new code of Canon Law, a new notion of holiness (which is unrecognisable to Tradition), there are now moves to overturn Catholic morality, the last defence, the last bastion left in the official Church. It is an attack on the moral order, both natural and supernatural.You know that the Church authorities want to allow Holy Communion for divorced “re married” couples, as well as recognising sinful partnerships, cohabitation, and even unnatural unions. This affects Catholic teaching and goes against the sanctity of the Church herself, against the sanctity of marriage and against the sanctification of souls.
It also signifies an overturning of all morality because if the realities of good and evil can change then virtue and sin become relative. It changes the precepts given by Our Blessed Lord in the moral law, both natural and supernatural.
We also see how the Roman authorities work to get rid of those opposed to these
innovations, whether they be prelates or institutions, such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

We see how Rome still wants to impose upon us the errors of Vatican II and the
post -conciliar reforms, making these a condition of any agreement. We see how those in authority act towards us with disloyalty and cunning.
Hence our position remains very clear, and Bishop Fellay himself has stated that,
given this concrete situation, it is impossible and indeed suicidal to envisage any sort of agreement or canonical recognition.”

It is a tragedy that naive +Fellay is in charge. He thinks as long as BXVI is alive there is a conservative in the Vatican sympathetic to tradition. The "attack on the moral order, both natural and supernatural" has been blamed on bold Francis but in reality he is only doing BXVI's dirty work of the "real council". Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the CDF said the following in a 1994 "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL:

Quote

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church's doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.

This is where the 1989 "Profession of Faith" comes in. Since the modernists "do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act", the "religious submission of will and intellect" would do.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** August 16, 2015, 05:12:01 PM »

Look, Drew, our point of contention is this. You're arguing that the Profession's use of the phrase "of the mind and will" necessarily has it talking about giving the unconditional assent of faith to the non-definitive acts of the Magisterium, forcing everyone to believe the non-infallible acts of the Magisterium with the certainty of faith.

You based this on nothing other than the phrase "of the mind and will". I point out that Monsigonor Fenton referred to the conditional religious submission as being "internal" and "of the mind" ... to distinguish it from the merely external submission.

That passage from the Profession specifically refers to RELIGIOUS submission, which is a well-known term among theologians, who routinely qualify it as "internal" and "of the mind" vs. merely external. Your quote from Vatican I refers to submission "by faith" and is describing supernatural faith as involving both the intellect and the will, the will because the truths of revelation are unknowable by the intellect on its own and therefore requires a submission of the will. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

There's absolutely NO WAY in which the Conciliarists now believe that non-definitive acts of the Magisterium must be accepted as de fide. In fact, most Conciliarist theologians circuмscribe the scope of infallibility and of what's de fide to the extreme.

As for those who accuse people who don't accept the need for religious submission as being heretics, they're mistaken regarding the theological note. It's only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** August 16, 2015, 05:23:30 PM »

Quote from: drew

It is as you say “in the Profession (of faith).” Can you provide other examples in Catholic Creeds that are offered to "heretics" for their admission to the Church that include non-dogmatic propositions grounded solely on human authority? If there is one I am not aware of it.

That's because the biggest beef that Vatican authorities have had with the SSPX, in terms of prerequisites for any discussion, is what they perceive to be the open rebellion towards and lack of respect for the Vatican II Magisterium among Traditional Catholics. This attitude in their minds entails an implicit rejection at least of the need for a religious submission towards the Magisterium. Just because it appears in a docuмent entitled "Profession of Faith", this doesn't necessarily mean that these authorities consider the acceptance of a need for religious submission to even the merely-authentic Magisterium as being de fide. St. Pius X excommunicated people for rejecting his merely-authentic Magisterium.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** August 16, 2015, 05:27:32 PM »

Quote from: drew

I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium” of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary.

This ordinary has no idea what he's talking about. So how's this relevant?

Of course, there would be nothing to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for "religious submission" as de fide. In fact, Denzinger treats many such Professions of Faith for returning heretics as being tantamount to dogmatic definitions.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** August 16, 2015, 05:31:39 PM »

Quote from: drew

You are repeating nothing that you have not already said. You again claim that I am making the “EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make.” It has already been denied and I am denying it again.

And yet you CONTINUE making the same error with every post. As I pointed out, you declare the simple use of the phrase "of the mind and will" in the context of religious submission as being tantamount to declaring that it must be believed unconditionally. SOMETHING CAN BE ACCEPTED CONDITIONALLY BY THE MIND AND THE WILL. That's PRECISELY what the sedevacantists have done. They see THIS SAME LANGUAGE in the pre-Vatican II theologians and have drawn the same conclusion, that this language requires internal unconditional assent of faith of all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.